Job 4:1; 5:1-11, 17-21, 26-27

Eliphaz Speaks: Job Has Sinned

4:1 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered: (Job 4:1, NRSV)

Job Is Corrected by God

5:1 “Call now; is there anyone who will answer you?

To which of the holy ones will you turn?

2 Surely vexation kills the fool,

and jealousy slays the simple.

3 I have seen fools taking root,

but suddenly I cursed their dwelling.

4 Their children are far from safety,

they are crushed in the gate,

and there is no one to deliver them.

5 The hungry eat their harvest,

and they take it even out of the thorns;

and the thirsty pant after their wealth.

6 For misery does not come from the earth,

nor does trouble sprout from the ground;

7 but human beings are born to trouble

just as sparks fly upward.

8 “As for me, I would seek God,

and to God I would commit my cause.

9 He does great things and unsearchable,

marvelous things without number.

10 He gives rain on the earth

and sends waters on the fields;

11 he sets on high those who are lowly,

and those who mourn are lifted to safety. (Job 5:1-11, NRSV)

17 “How happy is the one whom God reproves;

therefore do not despise the discipline of the Almighty.

18 For he wounds, but he binds up;

he strikes, but his hands heal.

19 He will deliver you from six troubles;

in seven no harm shall touch you.

20 In famine he will redeem you from death,

and in war from the power of the sword.

21 You shall be hidden from the scourge of the tongue,

and shall not fear destruction when it comes. (Job 5:17-21, NRSV)

26 You shall come to your grave in ripe old age,

as a shock of grain comes up to the threshing floor in its season.

27 See, we have searched this out; it is true.

Hear, and know it for yourself.” (Job 5:26-27, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from August 28, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 24, Year Two):

Eliphaz has sought, somewhat gently at first, to admonish Job, to remind him of the principle of retribution, and, assuming the words are his (cf. comments yesterday), to share a kind of “divine revelation” that no human being “can be righteous before God” (Job 4:17). The clear implication is that Job is suffering because he has sinned. Eliphaz’ first statement in today’s reading challenges Job to call on one of “the holy ones” (5:1), one of “the members of the divine council (see 1:6)” (Leong Seow, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 5:1), but the rhetorical question, “To which of the holy ones will you turn?” perhaps refers to the vision, but clearly implies its own answer. Such an appeal would not prove Job innocent. Mayer Gruber, who attributes the account of the dream vision (Job 14:12-21) to Job, not Eliphaz (cf. comments yesterday), says that with this question, “Eliphaz ridicules Job’s reliance upon the dream vision” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 1511 on Job 5:1). As Eliphaz continues, he says that “vexation (WfaKA [kā‘aś], many mss.sfk [k‘s], BHS apparatus) kills the fool” (v. 2a). Either Hebrew word can mean “irritation, anger,” but the first meaning given for the former is “trouble” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, s.v. WfaKA, kā‘aś). Seow interprets it as “rage,” which “has dangerous consequences” (op. cit., on v. 2, with ref. to Prov. 12:16; 14:30; Sir. 30:34). Although Eliphaz speaks in general terms, the application to Job is evident. Eliphaz as much as calls him a “fool” (lyv9x$, ’ ^ewîl ), a term that sometimes implies not merely the lack of wisdom and insight, but a lack of piety and reverence for God (cf. Prov. 14:9; 15:5).

Eliphaz continues to describe the troubles of fools in general terms. Their children “are far from safety,” he says; “they are crushed in the gate” without deliverance (v. 4). Seow says, “The reference to the threat to one’s children . . . is horribly insensitive, for Job had lost all of his” (ibid., on v. 4). In Eliphaz’ account, the miseries of the fool pile up. They lose their harvest to the hungry and “the thirsty pant after their wealth” (v. 5). Seow finds “word play” in verses 6 and 7 which “echoes Gen. 3:17-19. Trouble does not originate from the ground (Heb. ‘’adamah’), but mortals (‘ ’adam’) inevitably get into trouble” (ibid., on vv. 6-7)..

So Eliphaz admonishes Job: “As for me, I would seek God,” he says, with an air of superior wisdom–since he is perhaps the oldest of Job’s friends–“and to God I would commit my cause” (v. 8). Here, says Gruber, “Eliphaz introduces a significant theme of the book: God’s great power. For the friends, God’s power implies His fairness, as seen in v. 15, But He saves the needy from the sword of their mouth. Job believes that God often uses His power in a negative or abusive fashion (see esp. 12:7-25)” (on Job 5:8). Seow says that “Eliphaz uses a hymnic style (cf. Ps. 147) to argue that hope for mortals lies in the greatness of God” (op. cit., on vv. 8-16). “He gives rain on the earth,” says Eliphaz, “and sends waters on the fields” (v. 10; cf. Ps. 147:8, 16, 17). “He sets on high those who are lowly, / and those who mourn are lifted to safety” (v. 11; cf. Ps. 147:3, 6a); but “He frustrates the devises of the crafty, / so that their hands achieve no success” (v. 12; cf. Ps. 147:6b).

In the next section of the reading, says Seow, “Eliphaz suggests that suffering may be divine discipline (cf. Deut. 32:39; Ps. 94:12; Prov. 3:11-12; Hos. 6:1)” (ibid., on vv. 17-27). “How happy is the one whom God reproves,” says Eliphaz; therefore do not despise the discipline of the Almighty” (v. 17). God’s discipline is measured, “For he wounds, but he binds up; / he strikes, but his hands heal” (v. 18). God will protect you in the midst of various calamities, says Eliphaz, in famine, from death; in war, “from the power of the sword” (v. 20). God will protect one from “the scourge of the tongue” and from destruction (v. 21). Eliphaz continues in this vein through the promise of “ripe old age,” rather than premature death; a death in its proper time “as a shock of grain comes up to the threshing floor in its season” (v. 26). If, with Seow, not with Gruber, the dream vision is that of Eliphaz, then his speech appeals early on to divine revelation as support for its truth. In any case, his speech ends on a note of confident assurance; his parting shot claims to have investigated these things. Job should take them to heart. “See, we have searched this out; it is true. / Hear, and know it for yourself” (v. 27)

Acts 9:19b-31

For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 All who heard him were amazed and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22 Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah.

Saul Escapes from the Jews

23 After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.

Saul in Jerusalem

26 When he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. 27 But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. 28 So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord. 29 He spoke and argued with the Hellenists; but they were attempting to kill him. 30 When the believers learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

31 Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers. (Acts 9:19b-31, NRSV)

On July 9, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 6, Year One), comments were combined with editing and supplement from comments of August 28, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 24, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 4, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, Year One) and from comments on Acts 9:10-31 from September 18, 2005 (the Eighteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The comments of July 9, 2007 are repeated here.

The Saul of the New Testament, recently converted, spends “several days . . . with the disciples in Damascus” (Acts 9:19b), and proclaims “Jesus in the synagogues [of Damascus], saying ‘He is the Son of God’” (Acts 9:20), causing amazement among the believers, who had heard of his persecution of Christians in Jerusalem: “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem among those who invoked this name?” (v. 21a). They are still concerned, asking, “has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them [the believers of Damascus] bound before the chief priests?” (v. 21b). But Saul’s influence grew, as he “became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah” (v. 22). His growing influence aroused the concern of the non-Christian Jews of Damascus, who “plotted to kill him” (v. 23). Luke tells us that the “plot became known to Saul,” and though “they were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him” (v. 24), “his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket” (v. 25; cf. 2 Cor. 11:32-33).

Saul’s ministry was not well received in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26) until Barnabas endorsed him (v. 27). So after limited ministry there, and further attempts “to kill him” (vv. 28-29), he returned to his home in Tarsus (v. 30). The restoration of “peace” for “the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria” (v. 31) was likely due in some measure to Saul’s change from persecutor to advocate.

Paul’s conversion is usually dated soon after the crucifixion of Jesus, which some put in A.D. 30, others in A.D. 33. (I prefer the former, which is easier to correlate with the time-line of Paul’s ministry.) Paul says that after he was “called” (Gal. 1:15), he first went into [Nabatean] Arabia then returned to Damascus [which then bordered on Nabatean Arabia], and “after three years” he went up to Jerusalem and had limited contacts with the Christian leaders (Cephas and James, Gal 1:18, 19). Then, he actually went home (to “Syria and Cilicia,” Gal. 3:21–Tarsus is in Cilicia). Nearly a decade passes before Barnabas gets him and brings him to Antioch (Acts 11:25); in time for Paul to participate in “relief” for the “severe famine” (Acts 11:28-29), which is usually dated in A.D. 46 or 47. So there was apparently a decade after Saul”s (Paul’s) conversion during which we know little about his work, accomplishments and / or failures. He must have been learning many useful lessons that would serve him well during the decade of the 50s, in which much of the work of his three missionary journeys recorded in Acts took place. We may be overawed by comparing ourselves to his commitment and accomplishments, but we can perhaps take heart from the apparent fact that he had a long “internship” (ca. A.D. 35-47?).

John 6:52-59

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum. (John 6:52-59, NRSV)

On March 23, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year One), comments were repeated with some supplement from comments of August 28, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 24, Year Two), when comments of March 11, 2005 (Friday of the week of the Fourth Sunday in Lent, Year One), that were repeated on August 28, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 24, Year Two), and again on February 1, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two). The revised comments are repeated here:

The Jews were forbidden to eat (or drink) blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:14; cf. Acts 15:20), which would explain their misunderstanding. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (Jn. 6:52). Their question mentions only “flesh,” but Jesus’ response mentions both “flesh” and “blood” (vv. 53, 54, 55, 56), and adds, “whoever eats me will live because of me” (v. 57). This amounts to eating “this bread,” “the bread that came down from heaven” (v. 58). As I see the matter, this eating and drinking must be understood in some symbolic sense. “Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them,” says Jesus (v. 56), using the language of his teaching about the “true vine” (15:1-17). “Abide in me as I abide in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, neither can you unless you abide in me” (15:4). “Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing” (v. 5). This abiding (cf. also vv. 6, 7) is interpreted in the language of “love” and of keeping “my commandments.” “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love” (v. 10). “This is my commandment, that you love one another” (v. 12). Raymond E. Brown warns against “overspiritualizing of the reality of the eucharistic flesh and blood,” which he compares to John’s resistance to “any overspiritualizing of the humanity of Jesus” (The Gospel According to John I-XII, Anchor Bible, 29A, 1966, p. 292, on Jn. 5:51-59). However, it seems to me that the language about eating Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood must be understood in some sort of metaphorical or symbolic sense. “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (Jn. 6:63; cf. 4:23).

As the paragraph comes to a close, the metaphor reverts from flesh and blood to the bread from heaven. The eating mentioned in verse 57 applies to the latter: “Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever” (vv. 57-58). William Barclay finds it remarkable that “John has no account of the Last Supper [meaning the time when Jesus instituted the Eucharist]. He brings in his teaching about it, not in the narrative of the Upper Room, but in the story of a picnic meal on a hillside near Bethsaida Julias by the blue waters of the Sea of Galilee” (The Gospel of John, vol. 1, rev. ed., 1956, p. 225, on Jn. 6:51-59). “There is no doubt,” says Barclay,

that John is saying that for the true Christian every meal has become a sacrament. It may well be that there were those who–if the phrase ber allowed–were making too much of the Sacrament within the church, making a magic of it, implying that it was the only place where we might enter into the nearer presence of the Risen Christ. It is true that the Sacrament is a special appointment with God; but John held with all his heart that every meal in the humblest home, in the richest palace, beneath the canopy of the sky with only the grass for a carpet was a sacrament. He refused to limit the presence of Christ to an ecclesiastical environment and a correctly liturgical service. He said, ‘At any meal you can find again that bread which speaks of the manhood of the Master, that wine which speaks of the blood which is life.’ (ibid.)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net